New media and better means of communication has brought on much needed social change and increased tolerance between different groups of people. The printing press started the Protestant movement. The newspaper and the trans atlantic telegraph started the migration to America and forced the European monarchies to give their citizens better living conditions. Etc.

hoi.polloi » 11 May 2018, 22:10 wrote:I for one think that it's possible some positive changes have been reflected through mass media, including an imperfect multiculturalism and pseudo-tolerance of differences. We don't have another timeline to compare Earth's to but it seems that racism would be at an all time high in America right now if it were not for some attempts at acceptance pushed by television.

OR, it's exactly the opposite, and the media have fostered and pushed the racial view of America the whole world has to endure today, something which would have otherwise naturally dissolved as minorities improved their social and economic status. I suggest that America 50 years ago was dramatically less racist than today, in fact. I support Sowell's view, that 1) there is no racial problem, but only an economical one and 2) that the political interference (affirmative action and the other anti-meritocratic initiatives) on the individual's ability to improve their status it's what actually caused the ghettoization of black Americans and other minorities. The same can be said for the proactive role that the media decided to have in promoting racial integration, de facto making the idea of "race" inevitable and omnipresent, a mark on the forehead and hand of every citizen. Americans are no different from any other people, and human history shows that everywhere economic emancipation has been possible, racism has naturally disappeared. You are making the usual socialist's mistake, of thinking about the media and other outlets of culture as the tools to be used to achieve cultural transformation and change, when in reality they can only be used to prevent it. People naturally tend and float towards peaceful and respectful forms of self organization. There are no inherently "racist" countries or people. The most racist country in the world today is most certainly Israel (NOT America), and I doubt the media have played any role there but the one of keeping people from looking at each other with anything but the racial spectacles.

In recent years similar affirmative action strategies were rather suddenly imported and foisted on Brazil, decharacterizing one of the most naturally blended and peace-loving cultures on the planet and giving rise to endless asinine prattle in the media and the political arena.

Sorrry as random as this may Be I am rather drunk and am accessing the beeb website on my iPhone 6s+ and am almost getting “parallax” (no pun intended) on all the sites “did you see this” and “did you know that”aaaarrrgghScary, but hey I have had a few but was surprised how it hit me looking!

Speaking to Nono's points, before my father passed I asked him about race relations in our town on the east coast near one of the biggest shipyards in the USA in the 1930s-70's. He said back in the 30's/40's because of the shipyard there were many races living in our area. He remembered that there was never any racial tension because they were all working class families in "the same boat". He said he never saw a case of racial or ethnic animosity from one working man to another. So yes I believe our current racial hostilities were promoted intentionally from the top down.

Lets also keep in mind that music and sports were constantly breaking down racial animosity until a turn was taken to use them to exacerbate racial problems.

The idea of "racism" and the paradigm of "justice to be re-addressed" that comes with it, seems to have been for the most part yet another tool of subversion and power-grab, often not at all caused, needed by or reflected in society. Thomas Sowell:

For some time I have wondered what percentage of the BBC’s output could be spun, fabricated or scripted for entirely dramatic effect! I started out with a figure of 95% true, 5% untrue.

Over time that ratio in my head has shifted to more like 20% true and 80% untrue, where the only news that can be relied upon are the weather and football scores.

I started to notice to what a large extent the news came from sources that were entirely unverifiable, government, military, intelligence or big business or government masquerading as business. On any given day, a big chunk of the overall BBC news emanates from sources that are entirely unverifiable.

Let’s have a look at todays top 8 stories

The Lead Stories

Lead Story: Ukraine paid lawyer for Trump talks.

The story is a, ‘he said she said’. It goes nowhere and is an attempt to link Russia (by association) with the election of Trump. We know this is untrue as the US media elected trump.

Who is Michael Cohen:

Two of a kind. Trumps “fiercely loyal lawyer” is now a ‘person of interest’ in the ongoing Russian election saga.

Why raid on lawyer a big deal

Three of a kind. Trump's lawyer has been raided! He of all people will surely know about Trump's dirty dealings with Russian billionaires and any alleged election naughtiness.

The man who helped Trump win:

Four of a kind! He is the man (Paul Manafort) who helped Trump to be elected and is rumoured to have worked for….wait for it...a Russian billionaire! The preceding four stories fall into the ‘necessary evil, good versus baddie’ and ‘generate political apathy and hopelessness’ categories.

BREAKING: NFL clubs to be fined if they take a knee:

The social media trend of ‘Take a knee’ has been extensively discussed at Clues Forum. The consensus being that all movements, all hashtags and all outpourings are inspired and led NOT by the general public or victims of the event itself.

The story falls into the ‘divise story’ bracket meant to create friction between two groups who are almost or entirely harmonious. A divide, conquer and distract classic.

Beware odd sounds, US warns staff in China:

This is well worth a read. Lovely piece of creative writing by the intelligence community. It is a follow up to the media's soft launching of this novel new horror. In late December a story broke whereby Cuba were fingered for targeting US embassy staff in Cuba using a sonic noise.

The allegation today is that China are using sonic attacks (no less) on US diplomatic staff. How do they know? Well….reports of strange sounds in the area were heard and a member of the US diplomatic staff suffers a brain injury, no less! This story falls into the ‘have you heard about’ and general fear mongering category and has zero validity.

US North Korea summit ‘depends on Kim’:

An old favourite. This story falls into the same category as the first 4. North Korea are used to show the world how democratic, progressive and forward thinking they are compared to this insane scourge who rigs elections, keeps his populous poor and threatens all comers with nuclear destruction. North Korea is a fantastic ongoing drama which serve a number of propaganda purposes.

Yulia Skirpal hopes to return to Russia:

Russia is a failing state and presents zero threat to the world. To check this, go to a list of countries by GDP and you’ll note Russia, embarrassingly have slipped to below Italy, Brazil, India and South Korea! The economic powerhouse is dead. As long as this reality remains obscured, Russia still make a wonderful ‘necessary illusion’.

The strange nature of this failed poisoning is no doubt a follow up to the Alexander Litvinenko murder that allegedly happened in 2006 which involved some sushi. This pattern forming behaviour of propaganda is noted as a very effective way of generating a trend in people's minds, which leads to clear attitudes and beliefs about others. For example, dehumanising Arabs before attacking Arabs or showing election fraud so people don’t notice domestic election fraud.

Far from confirming that Russia are extremely sneaky, this makes me question both events. I now have a mental blanket ban on the believability of any story whatsoever that mentions Russia.

On a final note, why is the high profile victim of a failed state inspired murder (Yulia Skirpal) talking to Reuters? Would you not rather try and vanish extremely quietly, lest your sushi be spiked or you’re stabbed with a poisoned umbrella like the poor old Georgi Markov?

Conclusion:

On any given day, you can see lead stories are presented from corners of the establishment that are absolutely and totally unverifiable. Today seven out of eight are unverifiable. The odd one out is the NFL story. You have no choice but to believe them. I cannot.

“When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up everything with it.” ― Émile Zola

Fact: The Suns declination changes about twice as fast in Spring and Autumn, compared to Summer and Winter.

Fact: Just as much negative star parallax as positive has been observed historically.

These are two independent observations and irrefutable facts. So if we apply the scientific method to the hypothesis called the Copernican model, these two facts alone disproves it.

The change in declination is a geometric consequence of the Sun orbiting the Earth at an angle. If it was the Earth orbiting the Sun with a tilted axis, the declination speed cannot vary in this way. It would be constant all year round.

Conclusion: The Copernican model is false.

If Earth is orbiting the Sun at 100 000 KPH, there can only be positive parallax.

Fact: Just as much negative star parallax as positive has been observed historically.

These are two independent observations and irrefutable facts.

I don't accept this assertion. Preceding an assertion with the word "Fact:" does not strengthen the argument (assertion) nor make it true.

If by "historically" you mean "allegedly for the first time ever in 1838" then I would agree. 1838 is rather late in the game for the field of astronomy, wouldn't you agree? And I'm not really into numerology, as I think the human brain is prone to seeing patterns where there are none, but does anybody else find that date just a tad suspicious? Here of all places?

And who was Mr. Bessel, the alleged first in history to observe stellar parallax? I found this nugget on Wiki:

In January 1810, at the age of 25, Bessel was appointed director of the newly founded Königsberg Observatory by King Frederick William III of Prussia

Appointed by the king to be director of an observatory - he must have been quite the savant! Surely he achieved such a prestigious position at such a tender age by merit alone - for there is certainly no evidence nor historical precedent for these types of positions going to those who would be sure to do and say as they are told. Perhaps someone with better research chops than myself could do more investigation of Mr. Bessel, to see if there is any other pertinent information about the man.

Outside of the acolytes of $cientism who have access to the worlds largest telescopes, all owned and operated by governments, who has made these observations? Yourself, Patrix? Any other members of this forum? I would love to see some original research in this area, but as I seem to recall reading, the parallax measurements are so minute that they are only about twice the margin of error, presumably using some of the world's more powerful telescopes. Perhaps I am misremembering that, but with such tiny discrepancies, I would expect one would need quite the powerful telescope - the kind only found at government observatories - to make these observations, but as it is I have been fooled too many times by the "evidence" presented by the hucksters at the top of the "scientific" aristocracy that I have my serious doubts about this. After all, it was around the time of Bessel's "discovery" that the "discovery" of the first dinosaurs were made. If the entire field of Paleontology could be created out of whole cloth and maintained up to the present day, why not the theory and "evidence" for stellar parallax?

I don't see why we should accept this claim any more readily, and with little more evidence, than we should the rest of the theories or evidence that have been utterly destroyed by the members of this forum. I am open to the reasons why the evidence is seemingly so strong, but thus far I have not seen them. I have only seen the claim presented as fact, certainly with some accompanying pictures that may or may not represent reality, and which have seemingly not at all been questioned nor attempted to be verified by those who present them as fact. I find that quite curious and not in line with the standards of evidence and skepticism that are usually a hallmark of this forum.

All that being said - Heliocentrism is definitely unworkable, for many many reasons. "Stellar parallax" is hardly needed to come to that conclusion.

P.S. Please do not take offense by this. I am merely trying to hold every idea to the same standard of evidence. I am worried that some here may be overly invested in this assertion being true, and thus may have their judgement clouded. People in such situations tend to react emotionally to having their claims and beliefs questioned, and given the extremely high regard in which I hold yourself Patrix and most other members of this forum, I'm just not sure that my fragile ego could withstand much more in the way of personal attacks on this and similar topics. If I am wrong, that's fine - show me why! I am totally convincable. I am happy to be proven wrong, because I hate to be wrong and would rather be right! I assume that is the goal of everyone else here, regardless of how invested we may be in any particular idea.

Please do not take offense by this. I am merely trying to hold every idea to the same standard of evidence. I am worried that some here may be overly invested in this assertion being true, and thus may have their judgement clouded.

None taken and I appreciate the honesty. All data is of course problematic because of the reasons you wrote, but I don't think it's possible to falsify star parallax to a great extent. The problem with negative parallax has been disputed before. Simon wrote a very interesting post about it. What's typically done is to write off negative parallax as measuring error or "proper motion". But it's hard if I remember correctly to find a proportional amount of the same among positive parallax. Those measurements are always accepted as correct for some reason.

Many thanks for your work on Tychosium PR. I haven't had time to look at it yet, but Simon sounded very pleased :-)

Curious: What are the best reasons in your opinion that the Heliocentric model is not possible?

What are the best reasons in your opinion that the Heliocentric model is not possible?

That's a question with a complicated answer. I'd say that the strongest piece of evidence is that every single scientific experiment that has ever been devised has failed to demonstrate or measure the rotation of the Earth, let alone it's motion around the Sun, let alone it's rotation around the galaxy, let alone it's "expansion" movement in the larger universe. Consider just the implications of a rotating Earth, which is something that Simon has accepted as an underlying assumption for his Tychos model:

The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour.

I find it very, very difficult to believe that at the equator, the surface of the Earth is moving at 1,000 miles per hour (faster than the speed of sound) and at the poles it is stationary other than a leisurely 1 rotation per day (plus all of the other, exponentially more dramatic forces mentioned above, which I will not get in to yet but are of course also problematic), and yet there is literally no scientific experiment that can be done that is able to measure this remarkable difference. In fact, in the past when scientific experiments and the results thereof seemed to actually be in vogue with the general public, there was a "famous" experiment performed, the outcome of which was not to the scientist's liking and as a result the entire ridiculous field of "relativity" and the cult personality of Albert Einstein was created as a means to distract from the unexpected and otherwise inexplicable results of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

Other experiments can be cited, such as Kennedy-Thorndike, Airy's Failure, Sagnac (and the Sagnac Laser Gyroscope, whose function would seem to be impossible on a spinning Earth) and probably others that I no longer recall - the Flat Earthers actually do a fairly decent job of pointing out the flaws in Heliocentrism, and I would recommend anyone take a look at their more popular videos for that reason alone.

I am all for logic and testing evidence, but I also have a lot of respect for my instincts and my intuition. When I clear my mind of the propaganda of Heliocentrism that I've been fed my entire life (or do my best to anyway) and look up at the sky and connect with my experience, I do not experience motion. If the notion had never been proposed to me, I feel confident that I would never have come up with it on my own - I would have assumed that the motion that I saw overhead, and the stillness that I felt underneath, were the result of me being on a stationary object and other objects were in motion up in the sky. That counts for something with me.

Now that I am thinking of it, there was a specific moment when the Earth stopped for me. When I was first exposing myself to these ideas, specifically the relativity hoax, I remembered that I had a book on the subject. My uncle, who had died a few years previously, was a big collector of Sci-Fi books. He had shelves of them, and when he died my Aunt invited me to come and take whatever I wanted. I grabbed a few boxes of books, most of which I was familiar with or had wanted to read, some of them first edition paperbacks of popular authors such as Asimov and Huxley. For whatever reason, I had also taken a book titled "Relativity for the Layman" and of course had never read it. Once I cracked it open to see if it's arguments had any merit (it didn't) I came across the following passage with regards to the Michelson-Morely experiment:

The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether. Then we on earth would not experience an ether wind, thus making the detection of the ether impossible. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all of the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.

I remember laughing out loud when I read this. This is not science, I thought. This was the day the Earth stopped for me, and after that point it was up to me to figure out what that meant and what a better explanation might be. I admit that it was an emotional experience based on what might just be a coincidence, but at the time the fact that I already had this book in my possession felt like kismet.

Anyway, that is just one element of why Heliocentrism is ridiculous. I would encourage anyone to also look into the Cavendish experiment, and ask themselves if the conclusions that it makes are truly justified by the alleged results of the experiment, and to recognize that the proposed mass, weight, and distance of all planetary bodies (and the moon) are dependent on the Cavendish experiment being an accurate way to measure the mass of the earth.

Frankly, Simon's points about the seasons and the motion of the Sun are as good a refutation as any of the Heliocentric model, and one I hadn't encountered before. For me, the fact that they don't have a working model is damning. I've been able to do more to confirm the accuracy of the Tychos model than I have for the heliocentric, for the sole reason that I've never been able to find a model that is supposed to accurately represent it! How is that possible in the era of 3d graphics, realistic computer games and CGI?

Well that was pretty rambling, for which I apologize, but you asked me my opinion and there it is. There are a number of additional reasons that I find the heliocentric model untenable but unfortunately I am out of time.

I'd say that the strongest piece of evidence is that every single scientific experiment that has ever been devised has failed to demonstrate or measure the rotation of the Earth, let alone it's motion around the Sun

This is incorrect. The Earths rotation has been confirmed experimentally but not it's supposed 100,000 km/h motion around the Sun.

Why oh why is it so hard to look things like this up? And it makes sense. Just as we can confirm moons and planets are globes by looking at them with a telescope we can confirm the planets rotate. So it makes sense Earth does as well, and she does since its been confirmed experimentally.

Pianoracer wrote: Consider just the implications of a rotating Earth, which is something that Simon has accepted as an underlying assumption for his Tychos model

Dear Pianoracer,

I have accepted this underlying assumption, as you call it, only after some considerable amount of 'homework' on the subject matter. Of course, I haven't personally performed any experiments to verify Earth's diurnal rotation around its axis, but I have nonetheless matured my personal understanding of this important issue through careful consideration of volumes of literature on the matter and, foremostly, by assessing the writings and experimental results of a few brilliant (non-mainstream) researchers who have actually performed such experiments.

Short of listing all of the good literature on the subject matter that I've been fortunate enough to find over the years, I will for now just highly recommend you to read my favorite paper regarding Earth's diurnal rotation authored by Doug Marett, an extremely level-headed anti-relativist independent researcher who, among other things, has personally verified our planet's diurnal rotation:

If you take time browsing through Marett's enlightening website (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com) and its many brilliant papers, I trust that you will see that he is no fool - and may well be called a free-thinking "dissident scientist" - much like, I dare say, the two of us may be called...

Best of all, the Sagnac effect and its inherent implications destroys all of Einstein's bizarre theories in one fell swoop!

Please note that it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between these two very different experimental endeavors :

1: The experiments performed to try and measure Earth's so-called "translational motion" - i.e. Earth's supposed 30 km/s (or 107,226 km/h) speed as it purportedly hurtles around an orbit around the Sun, as postulated by the heliocentric theory. [all of which have miserably failed to confirm this assumption]

2: The experiments performed to try and measure Earth's so-called "diurnal motion" - i.e. Earth's assumed rotation around its axis every 24 hours or so. [most of which appear to have roundly confirmed this assumption]

In fact, a fellow by the name of Waverly Marsh submits this very good question - over at Researchgate.net :

As for any cognitive problems one might have in order to accept that Earth rotates once daily, here's an 'experiment' you might perform in your kitchen, at dinner time: sit down on a chair and hold an orange in your hands. Start rotating the orange around its axis. Wait for 24 hours until that 360° rotation is completed. My question to you, the next day (at dinner time), would be: "did you feel that the orange was rotating very fast?"

Well if countries (fictions) are signaling closer proximity in the physical world (which I think actually is real and distinct from a human-made fiction, whether you call it a "universe" or not) I guess it's worth taking note. But by valuable brianv tokens of the past, we've all wondered whether it (i.e.; physical locations of government operations) are just a game to give the public a sense that the violent so-called "governments" have sanctioned physical locations where they work on "real problems".

Seems to me the whole idea of embassies could be some kind of collective self-delusion that government decisions happen anywhere besides penthouses, private yachts, golf courses, mansions, castles and other symbols of wealth where most of us are trained to fear to tread. Then again, I suppose embassies might count as that same sort of phenomenon of the "sacred shelter" of "government".

As for the TYCHOS, it's just a combination clock and map brianv, nothing more. And let's face it. Clocks are useful. So are maps. If someone sends you to a grocery store in a neighborhood you've never been to and you end up being guided down a bad alley at the wrong time of day you might not be very thankful for their instructions.

Simon is just trying to get people where they want to go at the right time — as precisely in space (i.e.; real space — the space between objects, not fake space — the "dark dragons up there" kinda nonsense) and as precisely in time as is presently reasonable based on all the data about material and time that we humans have collected.

It may not change our maps to the grocery store, but it is highly worth other considerations.

(I hope you won't feel the need to dissect my similes or metaphors by saying we should be hunting, gathering and/or farming instead of shopping! Though I would toast you to the same point.)